UK Constitution: Oversight and Responsibility (Report from the Constitution Committee)

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this report from the Constitution Committee. I have a particular interest in that I was the first chair of the committee and was responsible for the report Reviewing the Constitution, on which this report draws and builds. I fear, though, that the gist of my speech can be summarised as: here we go again.

We have an excellent report from the committee—I agree with everything in it—and we have a response from the Government in essence saying, “Thanks, but we aren’t going to do anything. Responsibilities for the constitution are spread across government and work; there are no grounds for vesting responsibility for the constitution in a senior Minister”. Some noble Lords have endorsed that view.

We have been here before. In July 2023, we debated in Grand Committee a report from the Constitution Committee on the roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers. The committee advanced similar recommendations to those made in this report, and the Government’s response was essentially the same as the one before us. Rereading my speech on that occasion, I realised that I could repeat it basically word for word today.

The current Government are making the mistake of the last one in not grasping the dangers of leaving responsibility for the constitution spread among Ministers and civil servants, with no imperative to engage with it. This Government, like the last one, remind us that the Prime Minister has ultimate responsibility for the constitution. However, as Pat McFadden told the committee, in the real world, the Prime Minister is a very busy person. Prime Ministers may not have the time to think seriously about the constitution as a constitution, and they may not have an interest or understanding. The last to give serious thought to it were John Major and Gordon Brown.

Under Tony Blair, there were major constitutional changes, but they were disparate and discrete. They were not grounded in any intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change, and the Prime Minister lacked any interest in it. I recall Charles Kennedy telling me that, whenever he tried to talk to the Prime Minister about parliamentary reform, his eyes glazed over. Boris Johnson clearly believed that, as Prime Minister, he was above the constitution rather than the other way round. He was thwarted by what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has termed the “good chaps” theory of government, but that term, as we have heard in this debate, diminishes the fundamental culture of constitutionalism that characterises British polity. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, eloquently argued, it is not the form of the constitution that is crucial but the culture within which it is embedded.

Spreading responsibilities among Ministers means that there is no one with the capacity to oversee how our constitution is working as a constitution. The Prime Minister does not have the time and may lack the inclination to exercise constitutional stewardship, and the same applies to those who advise him. As the report draws out, components of the teams in the Cabinet Office who deal with constitutional issues have, particularly in recent years, moved between departments. There is also significant churn not only in these teams but in the senior Civil Service.

I moved an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill in 2010, which the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, accepted, to his credit. It formed Section 3(6) of CRaG, requiring that

“the Minister for the Civil Service shall have regard to the need to ensure that civil servants who advise Ministers are aware of the constitutional significance of Parliament and of the conventions governing the relationship between Parliament and … Government”.

This, as the report mentions, is embodied in the Civil Service Code. I variously sought to test how effectively it is being applied, not least given the turnover of senior civil servants. It is not clear how well grounded even the most senior civil servants are in the constitutional position of Parliament and the Executive. As one former Permanent Secretary confided to me, they tend to see Parliament as an inconvenience.

I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, told the committee that, when he was Cabinet Secretary and Boris Johnson went into intensive care, he consulted constitutional historians on what the implications would be if the Prime Minister died. My noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy referred to this. The noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, appeared unaware of recent scholarship and that one of his predecessors had commissioned research on the subject. I also noticed that, in his evidence to the committee, he said that the last Prime Minister to die in office was Spencer Perceval. The last Prime Minister to die in office was Palmerston in 1865.

We need to embed—I stress “embed”—within government, among both Ministers and civil servants, an understanding of our constitution, both its key components as laid out in the committee’s 2001 report and how it operates, not least the nature of conventions of the constitution. There needs to be a systematic means of inculcating that understanding, in effect generating the culture, and, crucially, as recommended by the committee at paragraph 38, a senior Minister with responsibility for advising the Prime Minister on discharging his constitutional responsibilities. We need the equivalent of a William Whitelaw.

The current situation remains, as it did under the previous Government, unsatisfactory and, given the need to embed constitutional stewardship, action needs to be taken quickly. I look forward to hearing from the Minister precisely what action the Government will now take in response to the committee’s report. I encourage her to respond substantively to the recommendation made by my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. There is a powerful case for ensuring that citizenship is taught effectively in our schools. They need the resources to teach it effectively. Active citizenship is crucial to the health of the British polity.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, at the age of 75, one would be too young even to be considered as a candidate member of the Chinese Politburo.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I sometimes make the point that teaching students makes me realise that I am not that young but being in the House of Lords makes me realise that I am not that old.

My noble friend Lord Astor made an appropriate point when he referred to the problem of the size of the House. However, he then went on to refer to Members who sit, as if the two things were the same. I would distinguish between the two. There is a problem with numbers, but I do not think we should focus on those who sit—that is, those who turn up and contribute to the work of the House. We are trying to deal with it at the other end rather than through those who make an active contribution.

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about leading figures in the House who have been over 75. One could add the names of Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon of Glaisdale among those who have influenced the House in a number of the decisions that it has taken. Without them, the statute book would have been much the worse. Focusing on age is to come up with the wrong solution to what my noble friend has identified as a real problem.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My noble friend makes an important point about the problem of those who do not attend as well as about those who do. However, there is a problem in both areas. Very often your Lordships’ House is overfull and some of us have to sit below the Bar, and that is quite unusual in my experience. We need to find a way of reducing the size of your Lordships’ House. Whether an age limit is the right way forward is a matter for your Lordships to consider. That, of course, would apply equally to those who do attend and those who do not. There are other ways, too, of dealing with the numbers, as several noble Lords have suggested. For example, you could have a ballot as you do for hereditary Peers, but I guess that that is not now very popular.

However, there are ways of doing it. Something has to be done and it is a pity that the Bill of my noble friend Lord Steel did not begin to address the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, this is a very simple amendment, which I hope my noble friend will be able to accept. It says:

“A person who ceases to be a member of the House of Lords under section (Retirement age) shall not be disqualified from … voting at elections to the House of Commons, or … being, or being elected as, a Member of that House”.

I beg to move.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I do not understand the amendment. It appears to be consequential on Amendment 128, which has just been withdrawn.

[The Earl of Caithness]

No, my Lords, it is not consequential on Amendment 128. I did not accept the groupings. I did not group Amendment 129 with Amendment 128 and I did not speak to it earlier. So I am moving it now and I am perfectly entitled to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Caithness withdraws his amendment it might be for the convenience of the House if I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to save me moving my Amendment 131 and thank him for his humane response to my suggestion, for which I am grateful.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

Before the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, responds, nobody has really picked up the point about rehabilitation. The clause does not prevent rehabilitation because it would be open for somebody who had been expelled from the House to be considered for a life peerage in the event of them doing good work and rehabilitating themselves. What the clause rules out is those who do not engage in rehabilitation.

[Lord Lyell]

I hesitate to intervene because my noble friend on the Front Bench is about to move on. He is trying to draw a distinction between a Private Member’s Bill and other legislation that passes through your Lordships’ House. Will he confirm with the authorities of the House what is different with the groupings and other procedures for a Private Member’s Bill as opposed to any other business in your Lordships’ House? I understand that the groupings are carried out with the agreement usually of both sets of authorities of the House but that it is open to each mover of each amendment not necessarily to agree and to insist on moving an amendment even though it may not be in accordance with the wishes of the Front Bench. Will my noble friend please explain why the usual arrangements might be different today because we are debating a Private Member’s Bill rather than any other procedures in your Lordships’ House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, I supported my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway’s referendum amendment to the House of Lords Bill in 1999. I thought that that was a major constitutional change and deserved to be put to the House. Sadly, that was not carried. I agree with my noble friend Lord Astor that this is not an appropriate measure for this particular Bill. I am glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that her party plans to have a referendum on this, which I would support.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I merely note in respect of manifestos at the last election that the three main party manifestos said different things about the House of Lords. They were not all in agreement. My main point is in response to my noble friend Lord Caithness’s argument that this is a major constitutional change so should be subject to a referendum. If the Bill constitutes major constitutional change which should be subject to a referendum then we are perfectly entitled to regard it as stage 2 of Lords reform and his objection to getting rid of the by-election option completely falls.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, the point I made was that it was because of getting rid of that. If the noble Lord takes out the removal of the hereditary Peers, then it is not stage 2 of Lords reform. The removal of the hereditary Peers, which breaks a crucial agreement, means that it becomes a major reform. It would be implementing the terms of the 1999 agreement. I have absolutely no doubt that we will talk about this a lot more in the future.

My noble friend Lord Cormack was absolutely right to say that many of your Lordships are concerned by the idea of an elected House, and not least the noble Lord, Lord Steel. He has expressed some serious concerns about having an elected House. I do not fear that. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. It is interesting that once again the hereditary Peers are more reforming than most other noble Lords. That takes me back to the days of my noble friend Lord Carrington, who in 1968 got the agreement of the basically hereditary House to change the way that we operated. That was turned round in the House of Commons. Had that proposal been agreed, I would not have been here for 40 years, nor would my noble friends Lord Selsdon and Lord Trefgarne. I would have missed it by one year and I am the third longest-serving Member of the House speaking today.

Clearly, this amendment does not receive any support at all. That surprises me. If we are allowed a referendum on a decision under the provisions of Article 31(3) of the Treaty on European Union, which permits the adoption of qualified majority, we ought to have a referendum on constitutional change. However, I agree with all those who have said that there must be a referendum on the Government’s Bill. I think I said that when we discussed it in your Lordships’ House. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.